Decision 2012

Quote: s2dbaker

I don't subscribe but this is as close as I could get. You can purchase a print of the original artwork here.

This really does list 689 reasons to get rid of Obama.
I'm still waiting for just ONE reason to keep Obama.

Some of my fave's:

662. Eating dog.

665. To shut up the Birthers . . .

668. So he can blame it on Bush.

327. Biden: “Jobs” is a “three-letter word.”

242. Bailing out Chrysler and giving it to an Italian car company.

71. Recovery Summer.

72. Recovery Summer II.

73. Recovery Summer III.

And the best for last:

689. Because you built that.

Quote: EvenBob

I'm still waiting for just ONE reason to keep Obama.

Keeps Evenbob ranting about the same thing.

Quote: rxwine

Keeps Evenbob ranting about the same thing.

I got another one. Because Obama doesn't take a $77,000 tax write-off for his pet dancing horse.

Quote: s2dbaker

I got another one. Because Obama doesn't take a $77,000 tax write-off for his pet dancing horse.

He would if he had one..

Quote:

U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign and its Democratic partners raised more than $114 million in August, narrowly beating Republican Mitt Romney for the first time in months as the race for the White House enters its final stretch.

Quote:

The Democratic incumbent broadened his donor base with more than 317,000 donors who had never given money before

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-usa-campaign-fundraising-idUSBRE88905F20120910

Thank God for all the dead people, cats and dogs and illegal aliens for their donations.

Quote: rxwine

Thank God for all the dead people, cats and dogs and illegal aliens for their donations.

From the same article:

"While Obama shattered every fundraising record in 2008
after the becoming the first presidential candidate to opt
out of a federal matching funds system, Romney has
outpaced him significantly on the fundraising front this year."

Better dig up some more graves..

Quote: rxwine

Thank God for all the dead people, cats and dogs and illegal aliens for their donations.

Don't forget space aliens, unicorns and leprechauns because actual people couldn't possibly be contributing to the Obama campaign.

Whatever you think the party plank should be, all must admit that the 'vote' was nothing more than a farce! It almost looked like a SNL skit! Let me keep doing this over and over until I can think of something to say....... Yeah... we got over 2/3.... right!!!

Nate Silver has Obama's chances for re-election at over 80% now. It appears that the vote on God and Jerusalem caused a significant post-convention bounce for team Blue.

Quote: EvenBob Romney has
outpaced him significantly on the fundraising front this year.[/b

"

Better dig up some more graves..

Romney has too. It's always going to be easier to campaign as the president. Fund raising rates are all bobbins anyways. Bunch of hot gas wasted on raising money to campaign to raise money to stay in office to raise money. Horrible, horrible broken cycle of fail.

I'm still waiting for a list of policies from both sides, so we can see which ones will be broken.

Quote: SOOPOO

Whatever you think the party plank should be, all must admit that the 'vote' was nothing more than a farce! It almost looked like a SNL skit! Let me keep doing this over and over until I can think of something to say....... Yeah... we got over 2/3.... right!!!

That definitely looked awful, and it was handled very poorly. I won't defend anything that happened. But, here's the challenge that the vote presented: A voice vote was called in a room full of people, only about 40% of whom had any standing to cast a vote. So they're stuck trying to judge not only the count/volume, but also from where the noise was coming from. There's probably a relatively interesting analysis to be done about groups of people in the room and what votes came from where. There's a fair bit of video, so it's probably almost possible to tell how many of the actual delegates voted in each direction. Usually a paper ballot follows an inconclusive voice vote, but it sounds like they were so unprepared for the situation that none were on-hand. So they just proclaimed the motion to be passed - that's the Dem's way, after all...

Quote: rdw4potus

That definitely looked awful, and it was handled very poorly. I won't defend anything that happened. But, here's the challenge that the vote presented: A voice vote was called in a room full of people, only about 40% of whom had any standing to cast a vote. So they're stuck trying to judge not only the count/volume, but also from where the noise was coming from. There's probably a relatively interesting analysis to be done about groups of people in the room and what votes came from where. There's a fair bit of video, so it's probably almost possible to tell how many of the actual delegates voted in each direction. Usually a paper ballot follows an inconclusive voice vote, but it sounds like they were so unprepared for the situation that none were on-hand. So they just proclaimed the motion to be passed - that's the Dem's way, after all...

I used to be in a group that used Robert's Rules of Order. While the Democrat Convention used some modified version of that, if you are in such a situation what needs to be done is stand up, and say loudly, "I CALL FOR A DIVISION!" At that point the voice vote is required to become an actual tallied vote.

Now, to do this would be hard to impossible there. But just for those who wonder or might be in a meeting where it comes up. At first I thought RROO was silly, but when you read them it is fascinating how they can be used to tie a meeting in knots. Congress uses their own version, but the methodology is still the same, and why parlimentarians rise in party ranks.

Quote: rdw4potus

That definitely looked awful, and it was handled very poorly. I won't defend anything that happened. But, here's the challenge that the vote presented: A voice vote was called in a room full of people, only about 40% of whom had any standing to cast a vote. So they're stuck trying to judge not only the count/volume, but also from where the noise was coming from. There's probably a relatively interesting analysis to be done about groups of people in the room and what votes came from where. There's a fair bit of video, so it's probably almost possible to tell how many of the actual delegates voted in each direction. Usually a paper ballot follows an inconclusive voice vote, but it sounds like they were so unprepared for the situation that none were on-hand. So they just proclaimed the motion to be passed - that's the Dem's way, after all...

Agree- As an alternative method---- Every year the American Society of Anesthesiologists has its convention, and we periodically have to vote on things. The vote almost always is a voice vote like you saw in the clip. However, any member can challenge the result if they feel it was not correct. Remember, that member becomes visible to the entire group so no one will do so if the result was obvious. So when we enter the ballroom, each voter is given a 'clicker', which basically has a "1" or a "2" option. The speakerof the house of delegates will then ask... All in favor, press "1", all opposed, press "2"... and the computer tells us what the exact vote is. It probably takes an extra 5 minutes per vote so it is only used when the voice vote is not clear. I believe the Democrats would have access to this technology....

Quote: rdw4potus

So they just proclaimed the motion to be passed - that's the Dem's way, after all...

It's also the Repubs way too.

Let's see what kind of spin we can get on this one...

"The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

I think the President should be in this meeting AT LEAST every single day that he is in residence at the White House and via secured video on most every other day. It should be a rare day that he misses this meeting. It isn't good enough to just read the briefings--I've read briefings and heard things briefed...there is a world of difference...

Quote: RonC

Let's see what kind of spin we can get on this one...

"The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

I think the President should be in this meeting AT LEAST every single day that he is in residence at the White House and via secured video on most every other day. It should be a rare day that he misses this meeting. It isn't good enough to just read the briefings--I've read briefings and heard things briefed...there is a world of difference...

Three comments:
1. Government Accountability Institute? Is it named specifically to create confusion with the Government Accountability Office, a federal agency?
2. You're absolutely right about the difference between being briefed and reading a brief. But there's also a difference between being briefed by director-level staff & discussing issues with people at the next level. When Obama stood up his briefer(s), who DID he talk to? For instance, I wouldn't mind him blowing off a briefing with a Major if he instead had a meeting with Secretary Panetta.
3. How can this stat even exist? Did he really not cancel the briefings that he didn't attend? I'd expect Obama to be adult enough to cancel the excess meetings and not keep would-be briefers from doing other work. I guess that's asking too much.

I can't stand how Presidential races seem to come down to one issue. All I hear is jobs, jobs, jobs. There are a lot of other equally important issues, and I never hear anything about them. I also don't like the idea of voting for a Mormon. If a man can believe in something as silly as that, how might his other decisions be distorted?

I was thinking of voting for Obama, then maybe Ron Paul. Quite frankly, I'm thinking of not voting at all, since I hate our political system anyway, and it seems like nothing ever gets done.

I want someone as President that would focus on changing our educational system. Someone that will eliminate silly laws like marijuana usage or gay marriage. But I don't think any of those things will change anytime soon. Unfortunate really.

Quote: rdw4potus

Three comments:
1. Government Accountability Institute? Is it named specifically to create confusion with the Government Accountability Office, a federal agency?

Maybe.

Quote: rdw4potus

2. You're absolutely right about the difference between being briefed and reading a brief. But there's also a difference between being briefed by director-level staff & discussing issues with people at the next level. When Obama stood up his briefer(s), who DID he talk to? For instance, I wouldn't mind him blowing off a briefing with a Major if he instead had a meeting with Secretary Panetta.

It mentions President Bush having high level folks there. I would assume, but not be sure, that this President did the same. I don't think he is skipping a meeting with a field grade officer...

Quote: rdw4potus

3. How can this stat even exist? Did he really not cancel the briefings that he didn't attend? I'd expect Obama to be adult enough to cancel the excess meetings and not keep would-be briefers from doing other work. I guess that's asking too much.

Who knows. Perhaps they all show up and he decides not to hold it or maybe he cancels it and no one is inconvenienced.

I think I want the President to be at these meetings.

Quote: ewjones080

I can't stand how Presidential races seem to come down to one issue. All I hear is jobs, jobs, jobs. There are a lot of other equally important issues, and I never hear anything about them. I also don't like the idea of voting for a Mormon. If a man can believe in something as silly as that, how might his other decisions be distorted?

I was thinking of voting for Obama, then maybe Ron Paul. Quite frankly, I'm thinking of not voting at all, since I hate our political system anyway, and it seems like nothing ever gets done.

I want someone as President that would focus on changing our educational system. Someone that will eliminate silly laws like marijuana usage or gay marriage. But I don't think any of those things will change anytime soon. Unfortunate really.

I'm not sure where you're from, but I hope you'll consider voting in local and state races even if you leave the top of the ballot blank. Some of those folks are actually decent, well-intentioned, hard-working people...

Quote: ewjones080

I can't stand how Presidential races seem to come down to one issue. All I hear is jobs, jobs, jobs. There are a lot of other equally important issues, and I never hear anything about them. I also don't like the idea of voting for a Mormon. If a man can believe in something as silly as that, how might his other decisions be distorted?

I was thinking of voting for Obama, then maybe Ron Paul. Quite frankly, I'm thinking of not voting at all, since I hate our political system anyway, and it seems like nothing ever gets done.

I want someone as President that would focus on changing our educational system. Someone that will eliminate silly laws like marijuana usage or gay marriage. But I don't think any of those things will change anytime soon. Unfortunate really.

I think there is more than one issue in this race. They may not be the issues you feel important, but some are. President Obama is now in favor of gay marriage after whatever his position was before (I think he was undecided or undeclared). Jobs are important--most of us need them and there aren't enough of them right now, so we need to consider who can help with that issue (even though it isn't just Presidential action or inaction that causes the economy to go into a recession or stay in a funk).

Mormon? Is that as bad as the spew President Obama sat through in his church? No, I never get to decide what my preacher says either...but I can sure take my ass out of his church if I feel he crosses the line.

What political system would work better?

Quote: RonC

I think I want the President to be at these meetings.

If the president is getting the same quantity and quality of information elsewhere, I think I'm ok with these meetings being cancelled (I'd want the cancellation to limit waste). If the information is not adequately transferred in the absence of these meetings, this is simply unacceptable. If the meetings aren't cancelled and the President also isn't there, that's just silly.

The briefings are usually not given by low-level people, but more like senior mid-level. For example, the National Security Council Director for the Near East and South Asia regularly briefed President Clinton on happenings in the Middle East. That'd be roughly the equivalent of the Deputy Secretary level (assuming you consider the National Security Adviser to be a cabinet-level position) But, that meeting is redundant if the President was already meeting with and effectively being briefed by the National Security Adviser or Secretary of State or Defense.

Quote: rdw4potus

If the president is getting the same quantity and quality of information elsewhere, I think I'm ok with these meetings being cancelled (I'd want the cancellation to limit waste). If the information is not adequately transferred in the absence of these meetings, this is simply unacceptable. If the meetings aren't cancelled and the President also isn't there, that's just silly.

The briefings are usually not given by low-level people, but more like senior mid-level. For example, the National Security Council Director for the Near East and South Asia regularly briefed President Clinton on happenings in the Middle East. That'd be roughly the equivalent of the Deputy Secretary level (assuming you consider the National Security Adviser to be a cabinet-level position) But, that meeting is redundant if the President was already meeting with and effectively being briefed by the National Security Adviser or Secretary of State or Defense.

It is a meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to brief the President. It is called the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB). He is the President and he can just read the book, skip the meeting, or cancel the meeting. He can decide who is there. The back and forth with those providing the briefing can be very valuable. Having a group of trusted advisers and a group of briefers is a lot better than just reading the book. If he is being briefed by someone else on all this stuff, why not call THAT the PDB?

Quote: RonC

The back and forth with those providing the briefing can be very valuable. Having a group of trusted advisers and a group of briefers is a lot better than just reading the book.

George Bush, for 8 years, missed maybe half a dozen
briefings. He was there every day, asking questions,
giving insights. 6 days a week it was a regular meeting,
1 day a week it was an expanded meeting that included
Homeland Security. This is one of the reasons people
who met Bush in the WH were always blown away by
his knowledge of current events.

Obama finds the meetings boring, so he does what he's
always done, he delegates his responsibility to someone
else and votes 'present'. Carl Rove at the very start of
the Obama regime said the meetings are vital to our
security and for the president to be able to ask questions
and give FB. Obama has no questions because he could
care less, obviously. He hates the job, and loves the title
of 'president'. This has been established many times.

Quote: RonC

If he is being briefed by someone else on all this stuff, why not call THAT the PDB?

I'm sure that Obama DOES consider that to be the PDB. But the GAI doesn't. It's almost like they're a political organization with an axe to grind;-)

Quote: RonC

Let's see what kind of spin we can get on this one...

Do you really think whatever senior officials are there would let Obama miss something important if he wasn't physically present? He does have secure communications.

Quote:

By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Why not. The biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor happened on his watch. He's not an absolute doofus in making sure he's not faulted for missing security briefings after 9/11


Now then, the war on terror has been going for quite awhile. You can't expect Presidents to keep acting like its the day after.

Also, did you hear, Osama bin Laden is dead?

Quote: rxwine

Do you really think whatever senior officials are there would let Obama miss something important if he wasn't physically present?

If the dweeb Obama has sit in for him is just
as smart as Obama, why do we need him? So
every time he has to make a decision he has to
ask someone else? Which we all know is what he
does already.

When you're in college, why go to class, just have
somebody fill you in. A guaranteed way to end up
in the bottom 10% of your class. Which is probably where
Obama was, but he won't let us see his transcripts.

Quote: EvenBob

If the dweeb Obama has sit in for him is just
as smart as Obama, why do we need him? So
every time he has to make a decision he has to
ask someone else? Which we all know is what he
does already.

If you were there EB, or have a clue, please schedule a press conference.

Quote: EvenBob

If the dweeb Obama has sit in for him is just
as smart as Obama, why do we need him?

Every single member of GW Bush's senior staff was smarter than him. Did we need Bush?

Quote: rxwine

If you were there EB, or have a clue, please schedule a press conference.

If I was where? Its a fact that last year Obama
attended less than half the meetings and in 2010
less that 40%.

Quote: EvenBob

If I was where? Its a fact that last year Obama
attended less than half the meetings and in 2010
less that 40%.

If you were anywhere, EB. You consistently have the extra back room material about Obama, or about anything really, that other people don't. Obama does this or that -- what are you really, Michelle? She probably doesn't know that much about the O.

Quote: rxwine

Also, did you hear, Osama bin Laden is dead?

I know...they taught Biden a line...

Bin Laden is dead...
GM is alive...

we saved a million jobs in an industry that has 750,000 jobs.

President Obama is smarter than President Bush.

Oh...hmmm...we have Bush's grades. Nothing on Obama.

Just give me the tax returns to show you are rich; I won't prove to you that I am smart...

Vote Obama, friend...

Quote: RonC

I know...they taught Biden a line...

Bin Laden is dead...
GM is alive...

we saved a million jobs in an industry that has 750,000 jobs.

President Obama is smarter than President Bush.

Oh...hmmm...we have Bush's grades. Nothing on Obama.

Just give me the tax returns to show you are rich; I won't prove to you that I am smart...

Vote Obama, friend...

Lol. a Chia pet is smarter than President Bush. His daddy had clout and he still got Cs in schools that hand out As like they're going out of style.

I think the core Auto industry has 750,000 jobs. Not counting after-market parts manufacturers, independent dealerships, brand-specific laborers, etc. I'm not sure they still get to 1MM, and I'm not sure that it's fair to count easily retrainable laborers or dealers who could carry other lines (depending on saturation and proximity to existing dealers of other brands), but that's better than a lot of crappy political math.

Quote: rdw4potus

Did we need Bush?

What was the title of the August 6, 2001 PDB again? Bush was told that an attack by Al Qaeda was imminent and did nothing about it.

I hear Romney saying he's going to keep parts of Obamacare.

I could swear that doesn't sound the same as repeal Obamacare. There was a candidate (dead ringer for Romney) running on repeal, awhile back.

Quote: s2dbaker

What was the title of the August 6, 2001 PDB again? Bush was told that an attack by Al Qaeda was imminent and did nothing about it.

And what would you suggest have been done? You need to learn how intel works. You get pieces and drawn conclusions. You act like Bush got a message that said "terrorists will hijack planes and crash them into buildings" and maybe even the flight numbers.

The POTUS Daily Brief often has threats mentioned. That is what the brief is for.

OTOH, you have to give Bush credit for showing up to get the brief, seems Obama barely cares to show up for it at all.

Quote: rdw4potus

Lol. a Chia pet is smarter than President Bush. His daddy had clout and he still got Cs in schools that hand out As like they're going out of style.

I know plenty of guys who were less than ideal students...flunked out, had to go back, etc....that are way smarter than many that got straight A's.

You are not in touch reality if you really think President Bush was dumb. We know his grades were not the best but he is also a long way from dumb. President Obama? They say he is really smart. They say he is...well, they say he is a lot of things. He may be a lot of things but I don't believe he is a very good President.

Quote: rdw4potus

I think the core Auto industry has 750,000 jobs. Not counting after-market parts manufacturers, independent dealerships, brand-specific laborers, etc. I'm not sure they still get to 1MM, and I'm not sure that it's fair to count easily retrainable laborers or dealers who could carry other lines (depending on saturation and proximity to existing dealers of other brands), but that's better than a lot of crappy political math.

Okay, so there may be more than a million people in the auto industry, but not lots more than that. How in creation can anyone accept the statement from Team Obama that they saved a million jobs in an industry that has a little over a million (accepting your figures)? It isn't like they were suddenly going to all go out of business though companies may have sought bankruptcy protection and some others might have failed. It would have been bad, but there would not have been anywhere near a million jobs lost.

Quote: RonC

I think there is more than one issue in this race. They may not be the issues you feel important, but some are. President Obama is now in favor of gay marriage after whatever his position was before (I think he was undecided or undeclared). Jobs are important--most of us need them and there aren't enough of them right now, so we need to consider who can help with that issue (even though it isn't just Presidential action or inaction that causes the economy to go into a recession or stay in a funk).

Mormon? Is that as bad as the spew President Obama sat through in his church? No, I never get to decide what my preacher says either...but I can sure take my ass out of his church if I feel he crosses the line.

What political system would work better?

The thing is, a President will a lot of times never tell you what they really believe, because if they do, they could alienate a huge chunk of the voting population. They want to appeal to everybody, or a large majority, but our population is so diverse, that's extremely difficult to do. All I really know about the candidates are what I see on TV or hear on the radio. I'm extremely apathetic about politics, and don't bother trying to do deeper research myself.

So yes, if Obama was raised Christian, that's really just as bad as Mormonism if he believes it. I would like to think Obama is a very logical person, and doesn't necessarily believe in a lot of the religious teachings. I also don't want to turn this into a debate about religion......

I don't know what would work better, but something needs to change. I've recently read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and watching some clips on YouTube. He talks about how most atheist have to live closeted lives, because people will look down on them as immoral people. So while I think an Atheist Party--or more accurately, Logic and Reason Party--would be beneficial, nobody from that party would get elected any time soon.

I think we need Think Tanks again. There needs to be a lot more time and money invested into science, and other things that can benefit humanity. Look at WWII. Certainly, you can make the argument that the atomic bomb has not benefited humanity, and that we would be better off without it, but the point is, in just a few short years we were able to develop an incredible and devastating weapon. You can also look at the Human Genome Project. They thought that would take over a decade, but something like 90% of it was mapped in 18 months, and naturally, way under budget.

A lot of the problems that I'm aware of, religion has a hand in. Gay marriage shouldn't be an issue, but it is, because Christians think it's morally wrong or will "destroy the family structure" (although I think it's more about money than religion, anyway). Also, abortion. I think if most people think logically, they probably have no problem with the idea of "killing" an embryo, it's when it grows into a fetus that resembles a human that they get a little touchy. However, there are people in power that can stop the advancement of science because what those scientists want to do goes against what they learned in the Bible, and that's what pisses me off the most. I think things like paralysis, cancer, AIDS, disease could all be irradicated in less than twenty years if enough time and money was invested in it, but that can never happen, because of our political system and a lot of the population clutching onto outdated and illogical concepts.

This begs the questions: Is marijuana really bad for you? Is a child raised by same-sex parents really worse off? I always hear people making claims that marijuana can actually have a lot of benefits, while having for little downside, but my guess is, there hasn't been enough research. Same goes for children raised by same-sex parents. Has there really been enough research. Probably not. Of course, I haven't read any research on either of these topics, so it's really not my place to criticize.

Wow, I've really gone on quite the little rant, and I didn't intend to. Hopefully I made my points clear.

Quote: AZDuffman

OTOH, you have to give Bush credit for showing up to get the brief, seems Obama barely cares to show up for it at all.

Bush got the brief while on vacation at his Texas ranch between photo-ops of him clearing brush.

Quote: s2dbaker

Bush got the brief while on vacation at his Texas ranch between photo-ops of him clearing brush.

...and President Obama doesn't get the brief while he is playing his 1,000th round of golf!!

For the record, the President is never really on vacation. He/she may shorten their schedule but they are on call 24/7. The job never goes away.

It is interesting that the media has now been accused of coordinating questions in a presser in order to produce a Romney gaffe; meanwhile, Obama answered no questions at his event with the press. The media is also buying the Obama team's arguments about criticizing the President on his handling of foreign affairs but they didn't act the same way all that much in 2004 when Kerry did the same to President Bush.

Foreign policy has not been President Obama's strong point...I believe that Romney could do better.

Quote: RonC

It is interesting that the media has now been accused of coordinating questions in a presser in order to produce a Romney gaffe

Who is the accuser and what evidence does she have? Rush Limbaugh was once accused of Doctor Shopping to get prescription drugs but I didn't believe it until there was a guilty plea.

Besides, Romney should be deft enough not to fall into the alleged trap. If he is not, then he's not ready fot primetime.

Quote: s2dbaker

Who is the accuser and what evidence does she have? Rush Limbaugh was once accused of Doctor Shopping to get prescription drugs but I didn't believe it until there was a guilty plea.

Besides, Romney should be deft enough not to fall into the alleged trap. If he is not, then he's not ready fot primetime.

Here is the open mic of reporters coordinating.

Same as the journal-list mailing list in 2008 where the media agreed to work to bury the Rev Right story.

This proves what, again?
Pretty weak...

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is the open mic of reporters coordinating.

Same as the journal-list mailing list in 2008 where the media agreed to work to bury the Rev Right story.

I listened to the whole clip. Aside from the fact that the CBS reporter has a whiny/tinny voice, it sounded like reporters talking to each other. Where is the conspiracy theory basis in there?

Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is the open mic of reporters coordinating.

Same as the journal-list mailing list in 2008 where the media agreed to work to bury the Rev Right story.

I listened to the whole clip. Aside from the fact that the CBS reporter has a whiny/tinny voice, it sounded like reporters talking to each other. Where is the conspiracy theory basis in there?

You folks are right...there is no media bias...well, except Fox. They are biased.

MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc.--no bias.

If you can get a politician in trouble with a question, he/she deserves it.

All these politicians eventually take defensive actions, calling on reporters they get the most soft balls from. Most of them come up with an answer without answering the question asked if they don't like what they're asked.

Quote: RonC

You folks are right...there is no media bias...well, except Fox. They are biased.

I think Jon Stewart is less biased than Fox News. If he thinks the Democrats say something funny, he writes about it.

Quote: EvenBob

All this sturm and drang before the election is
meaningless. What it always comes down to
when an incumbent is involved, is this. When
the independents and undecideds go into the
voting booth, they'll be asking themselves
very personal questions, like how am I doing
financially. Do I want another 4 years like the
last 4 years. Do I want a change.

Its what sunk Carter because of the economy,
and sunk Bush Sr because of the tax increases.
People always vote incumbents in or out because
of their wallets, for the most personal of reasons.

Knowing that, does anybody REALLY think any
voter in his right mind wants another 4 years
like the ones we just had? I mean, c'mon.. Its
even the reason Ford didn't get elected in 76,
forget Nixon. We were in a bad recession. People
always vote with their wallets.

Citation on how Mitt Romney will fill wallets?

Quote: RonC

You folks are right...there is no media bias...well, except Fox. They are biased.

MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc.--no bias.

Fox is obviously and ridiculously biased. So is MSNBC. The others? It's definitely less clear. I think they at least try to keep their left-leaning personal beliefs from tainting their work product. I don't think they always succeed as well as they should.

Quote: rdw4potus

Fox is obviously and ridiculously biased.

Give some examples, I just don't see it. FOX has
so many Lib's there now its ridiculous. Even O'Reilly
is constantly defending Obama, it makes me sick.
You must be watching a different FOX than me.